Acceptance or decline of requests to review manuscripts: A gender-based approach from a public health journal

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Información del item - Informació de l'item - Item information
Title: Acceptance or decline of requests to review manuscripts: A gender-based approach from a public health journal
Authors: Domínguez Berjón, María Felicitas | Godoy, Pere | Ruano Ravina, Alberto | Negrín, Miguel Ángel | Vives-Cases, Carmen | Álvarez-Dardet, Carlos | Bermudez-Tamayo, Clara | López, María José | Pérez, Glòria | Borrell, Carme
Research Group/s: Salud Pública | Investigación en Género (IG)
Center, Department or Service: Universidad de Alicante. Departamento de Enfermería Comunitaria, Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública e Historia de la Ciencia
Keywords: Editorial policy | Gender | Peer review | Scientific publications
Knowledge Area: Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública
Issue Date: 22-Feb-2018
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Citation: Accountability in Research. 2018, 25(2): 94-108. doi:10.1080/08989621.2018.1435280
Abstract: Peer review in the scientific publication is widely used as a method to identify valuable knowledge. Editors have the task of selecting appropriate reviewers. We assessed the reasons given by potential reviewers for declining a request to review, and the factors associated with acceptance, taking into account the difference in the sex of the reviewer. This is a descriptive study of the review requests from a public health journal (Gaceta Sanitaria) with an enforced gender policy. The dependent variables were requests, response to requests, reasons potential reviewers gave for declining requests and time to review. We carried out a descriptive analysis of these indicators and applied logistic regression to analyze factors (professional and research/review experience) associated with having done at least one review in 2014–2015. Results were stratified by sex. Journal editors sent 1,775 requests to 773 potential reviewers; 52.3% of whom reviewed at least one manuscript. Of the 396 declined requests (22.3%), the most common reasons were lack of time and of experience (88.1%). No differences were observed by sex. In the multivariate analysis, having reviewed for the journal in previous years showed the strongest association with acceptance. Specific analyses of data on requests reviewers may be useful for improving the acceptance rates to review. This study did not show gender differences in several indicators of the reviewing process.
ISSN: 0898-9621 (Print) | 1545-5815 (Online)
DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2018.1435280
Language: eng
Type: info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Rights: © Taylor & Francis
Peer Review: si
Publisher version:
Appears in Collections:INV - SP - Artículos de Revistas
INV - Investigación en Género - Artículos de Revistas

Files in This Item:
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Thumbnail2018_Dominguez_etal_AccountRes_accepted.pdfAccepted Manuscript (acceso abierto)889,23 kBAdobe PDFOpen Preview

Items in RUA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.